Advanced

Dancing on the borders of article 4. Human trafficking and the European Court of Human Rights in the Rantsev case

Stoyanova, Vladislava LU (2012) In Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 30(2). p.163-194
Abstract (Swedish)
Abstract in Undetermined

This article points to four worrisome aspects of the Court’s reasoning in Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia. First, the Court takes on board the concept of ‘human trafficking’ without offering any meaningful legal analysis as to the elements of the human trafficking definition. Second, the adoption of the human trafficking framework implicates the ECtHR in anti-immigration and anti-prostitution agenda. The heart of this article is the argument that the human trafficking framework should be discarded and the Court should focus and develop the prohibitions on slavery, servitude and forced labor. To advance this argument I explain the relation between, on the one hand, ‘human trafficking’ and, on the other... (More)
Abstract in Undetermined

This article points to four worrisome aspects of the Court’s reasoning in Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia. First, the Court takes on board the concept of ‘human trafficking’ without offering any meaningful legal analysis as to the elements of the human trafficking definition. Second, the adoption of the human trafficking framework implicates the ECtHR in anti-immigration and anti-prostitution agenda. The heart of this article is the argument that the human trafficking framework should be discarded and the Court should focus and develop the prohibitions on slavery, servitude and forced labor. To advance this argument I explain the relation between, on the one hand, ‘human trafficking’ and, on the other hand, slavery, servitude and forced labor. I suggest hints as to how the Court could have engaged and worked with the definition of slavery which requires ‘exercise of powers attaching to the right of ownership’, in relation to the particular facts in Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia. Lastly, I submit that the legal analysis as to the state positive obligation to ‘take protective operation measures’ is far from persuasive. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
forced labour, Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, human trafficking, servitude, slavery, mänskliga rättigheter, human rights
in
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
volume
30
issue
2
pages
163 - 194
publisher
Intersentia
external identifiers
  • wos:000305371200002
  • scopus:84863500993
ISSN
0169-3441
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
ec88a448-1b2a-47eb-8316-5303251fcf4a (old id 2797297)
alternative location
http://www.nqhr.net/?referer=http%3A%2F%2Fworks.bepress.com%2Fvladislava_stoyanova%2F5%2F
date added to LUP
2012-06-18 15:40:40
date last changed
2017-01-01 05:40:28
@article{ec88a448-1b2a-47eb-8316-5303251fcf4a,
  abstract     = {<b>Abstract in Undetermined</b><br/><br>
This article points to four worrisome aspects of the Court’s reasoning in Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia. First, the Court takes on board the concept of ‘human trafficking’ without offering any meaningful legal analysis as to the elements of the human trafficking definition. Second, the adoption of the human trafficking framework implicates the ECtHR in anti-immigration and anti-prostitution agenda. The heart of this article is the argument that the human trafficking framework should be discarded and the Court should focus and develop the prohibitions on slavery, servitude and forced labor. To advance this argument I explain the relation between, on the one hand, ‘human trafficking’ and, on the other hand, slavery, servitude and forced labor. I suggest hints as to how the Court could have engaged and worked with the definition of slavery which requires ‘exercise of powers attaching to the right of ownership’, in relation to the particular facts in Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia. Lastly, I submit that the legal analysis as to the state positive obligation to ‘take protective operation measures’ is far from persuasive.},
  author       = {Stoyanova, Vladislava},
  issn         = {0169-3441},
  keyword      = {forced labour,Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights,European Court of Human Rights,Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia,human trafficking,servitude,slavery,mänskliga rättigheter,human rights},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {163--194},
  publisher    = {Intersentia},
  series       = {Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights},
  title        = {Dancing on the borders of article 4. Human trafficking and the European Court of Human Rights in the Rantsev case},
  volume       = {30},
  year         = {2012},
}